0 admiral and the general aren't working in in a very personal way with taliban authorities outside the airport. let me go another one on the phone. tara. >> thank you for doing this, john. yesterday the president mentioned also that he was calling upon the department to create contingency plans in case the number of americans and afghans haven't gotten out by the 31st. can you just explain kind of what the department is thinking about what its options might be to continue to get americans out after the 31st if they haven't made it to the airport by then? and then just to follow on jeff's question with afghans that aren't getting through, for those -- have discussions gone on with the taliban to maybe find some negotiation space for they've said no more afghans can clear but there are 10,000 at the airport. something is happening behind the scenes helping some people get through. can you talk about that to some extent? >> i'll start with the last question first. kind of comes off of some things that mr. kirby just said with that constant communication. you know, i know the most senior commanders on the ground are out and discussing with the taliban leaders that are manning these checkpoints exactly what the documentation needs to look like, times in coordination, details of that. as we know, though, there are reports of -- that some aren't able to get through there. i can tell you that the department of state, the consular affairs officers that are there are working with our commanders there to insure that documentation, names and those things as often as required are being communicated to the taliban that are out those checkpoints to allow transition in there to get into the gates. >> tara, on contingency plans. i'm not going to get ahead of the planning proper se.s we are a planning organization. our -- one of our main jobs is to make sure that the president has options and as he made clear yesterday, he wants to see this mission complete by the end of the month. we're still working towards that goal but we will be drafting up potential what we call in the military branches and sequels if we believe a conversation needs to be had later on in the month that the timeline might need to be extended. for what purpose, for what number, for how long, all of that is baked into the planning process. i'm just not going to get ahead of what the planners are doing. >> so i'm still unclear at the very end of this, the 30th, 31st who will be doing security at the airport. you are saying the taliban will be responsible. >> the taliban will be responsible for running an airport in a city that they are the heads of government there. >> running the airport and security, right? >> according to -- when we are gone, the airport will no longer be secured by american forces. what that security looks like after we're gone i can't speak to that. >> before the u.s. leaves, though. you will be doing it -- the last couple aircraft leave with americans who is running security keeping those aircraft and runway safe? >> you are asking a very good tactical question, right? security, which we would call commanders inherent responsibility throughout every phase of the operation, we are continuing to secure ours efs to the very last requirement of that. so when you say who is securing the last flight and all those things, we will have that ability to secure ourselves through multiple means to insure flights are able to take off. >> while you have you up there. you said the most senior commanders on the ground are out and discussing things with the taliban. you mean the admiral and general are going to the checkpoints? >> i don't want to give names and things going on. commanders that have authority at echelon to be able to communicate. as we said the most important thing is to be able to coordinate with the taliban to get the right people through. we've seen there has been reports of not the right folks being able to get through. every day we're insuring that we can get as many people in as possible so that we can fly them to safety. >> if i could ask one more, john, on the equipment you were talking about earlier. when you talk about transitioning towards getting military assets out. obviously getting the people out, american military out. will there be a point where you will have a decision or general whoever it is will have a decision about putting people on these aircraft or putting some of the equipment, artillery, all the equipment still at the airport and has there been a decision made to prioritize lives over military equipment? >> lives are always going to be the priority, period. but as we get closer to the end there will be some equipment and systems that we will probably take with us as we leave. and the disposition of what we aren't taking with us will be up to the admiral to determine how that stuff is handled. but lives will always be the chief priority throughout this entire process. >> all nationalities? >> lives will always be the priority throughout this process. >> you said 4,000 americans were evacuated yesterday. is there an updated number. the base number of how many have to be evacuated? >> north of 4400 today. i don't have a specific number of total americans that are still in need of leaving. i don't have that. >> the secretary and the department at large have -- do you find lawmakers for them to be there? >> we were not aware of this visit. and we are obviously not encouraging v.i.p. visits to a very tense, dangerous and dynamic situation at that airport and inside kabul generally. and the secretary i think would have appreciated the opportunity to have had a conversation before the visit took place. >> they got a chance to talk to commanders, as i understand and got a chance to talk to troops. but to say that there wasn't a need to flex and to alter the day's flow, including the need to have protection for these members of congress, that wouldn't be a genuine thing for me to assert. there was certainly -- there was certainly a pull-off of the kinds of missions we were trying to do to be table accommodate that visit. >> bill: to be clear the two congressmen took seats that would have been for refugees leaving and took time away from the mission. >> they certainly took time away from what we had been planning to do that day. and i don't know on the aircraft, they did fly out on a military aircraft. i honestly don't know what the seat capacity was on that aircraft but they are out of the country now. >> just one more question on withdrawal in the coming days. since the president has said setting contingency planning aside that everyone will be out by august 31st. my question is do you have in hand all the authorities, approvals, signed orders, whatever is necessary to just move ahead and carry that out, or does the president, the secretary, general mckenzie, general milley, does somebody still have to sign an order to have that formal withdrawal begin? >> barb, without making it sound like i'm trying to gloss over your question, obviously we are tracking the end of the mission at the end of the month and so of course general mckenzie has retrograde plans in -- on the shelf and ready to go. i can assure you that before that effort is undertaken in earnest, there will be a conversation with the secretary of defense and secretary austin will have a chance to provide his guidance and direction with respect to retrograde. i think i will leave it at that. >> i guess i don't understand. the president made the decision to stick to the deadline of august 31st for all intents and purposes. and you have that from the commander-in-chief. so what is it that -- i just don't get it. what is it that still has to happen to have the formal official withdrawal begin? >> the president also said that he wanted the pentagon to come up with contingency plans should there be a need to have a conversation about altering the timeline. so we are tracking towards the 31st. there are retrograde plans that have been drafted up and the secretary has seen them and is aware of them. but i think you would expect that in these final days, the secretary will want to have the opportunity to issue specific direction to general mckenzie about going forward with those retrograde plans. we're focused on that date but also focused keenly making sure we get as many people out as fast as we can for as long as we can. if there has to be alterations for that secretary austin will want to issue his guidance and direction to the commanders on the ground. >> can you confirm that no americans have been killed since august 14th? and if there is any american killed through august 31st, how would that be announced? >> are you talking about american soldiers, troops? >> any american. >> there have been no u.s. troops killed since the 14th and we only know of one minor injury. i know of no american citizens who have been killed. i don't know of any. now we don't have perfect visibility into everything going on in kabul but we know of no american casualties. >> one more question. when exactly does the august 31st deadline take effect? is that august 31st midnight or september 1st midnight? >> august 31st. >> a couple points you made earlier. you mentioned at some point the u.s. will prioritize getting military personnel out of the international airport. is there a point where afghan nationals and u.s. citizens will not be allowed to get into the airport compound? supposition being you would have to have some sort of cut-off before you could then fly the final troops out. if so, when is that? >> i just want to go back to something i said earlier about airflow, right? and as you've seen the capability over the last three days you know over 90 aircraft total yesterday. and a lot focused on evacuation. so the way to answer that question is the commanders who will go forward with the plan will have options, you know, to make decisions on a daily, sometimes hourly basis of what loads are ready, what aircraft are ready. can i put something else on that bird? that is how fluid and we're able to do at that level of planning. it goes back to the overall mission here is continue to be able to get as many out as possible. >> one reason i'm a little confused it seems part is contingent about the taliban and how they secure the area around the airport and who they let in. who makes the final determination of security outside the airport? you mentioned there are communications happening. for example, if the u.s. wanted some kind of national in and the taliban didn't want to let them in, who makes that determination and how is it sorted out? >> right now the airfield is secure to allow full operations and do not assess that will change now. that is our current planning and we'll continue to go forward with that. >> to sort of revisit what i said before. we have been very clear with taliban leaders about what credentials we want them to accept. remember, american citizens, siv applicants and vulnerable afghans. and we have shared what the proper credentials are and by and large not saying it has been perfect but by and large the people that we have made clear to the taliban that we want to have access through the checkpoints have been able to get through by and large. again, with caveats. so it hasn't been a big problem to date. as the general said earlier, we also have other means to go out and get people in if we need to. we have now done three rotary wing lifts. so we have that option available to us as well. did that answer your question? >> i don't mean to be thinking about this i'm trying to understand how the communication happens. let's say they aren't letting in a certain credential that should be let in. how is that resolved? >> good question. what would happen is commanders on the ground would -- if that was brought to their attention. this has actually happened. when we have reports that somebody who is properly credentialed is not being let in or maybe their family members, but they have proper credentials, we're making that clear to the taliban leaders that no, they are appropriate, you do need to let them in. there has been a little give and take. i think it was mentioned earlier. not every checkpoint is manned in the same way and by the same individuals as every other one and so there are variances at some of the checkpoints in terms of how the word has gotten down and how much the taliban manning the checkpoint are following the dictates of their commanders. so that's why it is a constant communication on the ground with them to keep that flow going as much as possible. but yes, there are stops and starts, there are hurdles that have to be overcome almost on any given day but really it is a credit to the commanders on the ground that they are continuing to have these conversations. now, did that get at it? >> yes. >> thank you. the government is operating on military aircraft since operation to receive afghanistan -- [inaudible] and you know that north korea sponsor the taliban and we know that in the past the north korean taliban conducted special trainings together. what kind of united states monitoring of north korea can we see -- [inaudible]? >> first of all, as we talk about the republic of korea's support to airlift, as i said earlier, we are extremely grateful for their contribution to increase our outflow. you know, throughout the world as you know we talk about north korea, and all of our commands, pay com are always diligent in, you know, watching in their mission of insuring, you know, keeping awareness of any type of thing north korea is doing. so once again we're very grateful and thankful for the republic of korea support in helping us. >> any contingent plans for anything happening on the korean peninsula, including -- >> the mission remains unchanged and steadfast. >> thank you. >> i need to go to the phones. tony. >> two quick questions. jen psaki yesterday said this evacuation is on track to be the largest in u.s. history. largest airlift in u.s. history. the numbers you applied so far, 88,000 i think you've said have been evacuated. so are you pretty confident that you will be able to best the operation frequent win 1975 saigon evacuation where 131,000 people were evacuated by air and sea? >> we're not competing with history. we're trying to get as many people out as we can as fast as we can. and when it's all said and done we will take a look at what we were able to accomplish. this isn't about trying to beat some sort of historical record. i will only add that 88,000 in the course of just a week, week and a half, is no small feat. and you have seen us over the last three days alone exceed what we thought was going to be a maximum capacity. we certainly would like to keep that going for as long as possible. let me go back to the phones. sylvia then i'll get to you. >> steven. >> yes, thank you. can you tell me if all siv holders who made it onto the airport grounds with valid papers will be able to make it onto flights? i ask because an interpreter with an siv i have been in contact with made it onto the ground and was almost put out of the gate. that appears to have been now corrected. but will this interpreter and other siv holders who are on the ground be able to fly out before the deadline is gone, is over? >> yes. >> thank you. i have two small questions. first about the numbers. you said that 88,000 depart evidence since the 14th of august. is it only u.s. flights? if it's not only u.s. flights, how many were evacuated by u.s. flights? >> the total number? right at around 58,000 to 60,000. >> thank you. and the second question was about the president mentioned the isis threat and i wanted to know if you received new threats. if there was any danger at the gates or if -- [inaudible] >> we won't go into specific intelligence collection. we know as previously reported there is a threat. it has been a dangerous place that has had threats by isis and we continue to insure that we collect force protection to the highest levels possible to insure that we're able to continue evacuation operations. >> any new threats? >> we won't talk about the intelligence environment, you know that. as the general said, these are credible threats and we are mindful of that but we won't talk about it in great detail. >> i want to clarify your remarks about the vaccine memo. is this to say that the secretary is not going to request a waiver from the president and d.o.d. will just give vaccines on a mandatory basis as they become fully licensed? >> that's not at all. we'll have to see where the other vaccines end up. that's not at all what i meant to say. it is just that the only ones that will be made mandatory right now are the -- are the ones that are licensed by the fda. as you -- as the memo says, we are only going to make mandatory only those that have fda licensure. press reporting alone would indicate that the other vaccines are getting close. >> one more question. the relationship between the u.s. and taliban. do you think that pakistan should play a role to make good relationship because as long as i heard from taliban spokesperson, you guys have no good relationship, right? because they prevented civilians to leave afghanistan. do you think that pakistan has a role and what role? >> all of afghanistan's neighbors can play a role here and we hope they do, constructive role in afghanistan's future and pakistan certainly i would think would figure largely into that calculus as we talked about. there is safe havens across -- along that border remain a problem. we have been very honest and candid with pakistani leaders about the importance of not allowing that. and you would want to believe they also share that sense of urgency because they, too, are the victims of terrorist attacks that emanate from there. they should and i suspect they will want to play a significant role going forward and we would just ask for them and for any country, any neighboring country to ma that as constructive as possible. >> what percentage of forces aren't vaccinated yet and when will they have to be vaccinated by? >> so on the active duty force, 68% are fully vaccinated. we estimate that just over 76% have at services. this would include guard and reserves in the figures. the army 40% fully vaccinated. with 57% with one dose. for the marine corps 53% fully vaccinated, 60% with one dose. for the navy 73%, fully vaccinated, 79% with at least one dose and for the air force, which includes space force, that's 57% fully vaccinated, 64% with one dose. the secretary has made clear his expectation to the military departments that he wants them to move with some -- and get the force vaccinated as quickly as possible. he tasked them regularly update the deputy secretary on a very frequent basis on how they are moving out to achieve those goals. right now this mandatory vaccine will just be pfizer and then we'll see where it goes with the other licensures. >> will you be mandating vaccines for any of the afghan refugees who come into the united states and are brought here by the u.s. military? >> i will leave that question to the state department. there is covid screening being done at each stop along the way. and again i think that's a better question for the state department. >> you just said that any siv holders that come to the gate would be let onto a flight but we're getting realtime reports from abby gate that marines are turning away siv holders and turning them away. can you clarify are marines supposed to be turning away those are siv papers or with authorization to come onto the airport? have they closed down abby gate? >> i will let the general take that question. the question that was posed to me by i think it was steven was if you are -- if you have siv credentials and you're on the airport and the answer is yes, they will get off. >> i can't speak to that absolute realtime to the secon